THE KINGDOM PAPERS NO. 3.

REPLY TO CRITICISMS

These papers (including the back numbers) will be sent, free of charge, to all applicants.

JOHN S. EWART,

Ottawa, Ont.

THE KINGDOM PAPERS. NO. 3.

REPLY

TO CRITICISMS.

(In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italics not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use of.)

BEFORE proceeding further with the programme originally proposed for the present series of papers, it may be well to devote a few pages to some of the criticisms which Nos. 1 and 2 have evoked.

INGRATITUDE.

From several quarters comes the suggestion of ingratitude as an objection to independence: Has not the mother-land cared for us, and defended us? Do we not owe our existence to her? She may have made mistakes, but has she not always sought our welfare? Where should we have been but for her guardianship and her thousand kindly offices?

Such questions indicate a very erroneous, but I am afraid, a somewhat widespread misconception of colonial history. Underlying them is the idea that colonies were founded in philanthropy, and nurtured in unselfishness; whereas nothing can be further from the truth.

Until challenged, I shall not give further authority for the statement made in No. 2 of these Papers, (page 33) that

"The European nations did not, as a mere pastime, fight for colonial possessions. They wanted the profit. No one doubts that."

But let me mention a few facts.

The same war which gave Canada to the United Kingdom, ousted (substantially) France from India. No one need be told of the immense stores of wealth which India has yielded to her conquer

ors. Unsurpassed rapacity and greed, rather than philanthropy and unselfishness were the motives which prompted the East India Company.

In the negotiations for the peace of 1763, British statesmen hesitated between demanding Canada or a couple of West India islands from France. Why? Simply because they were not quite sure which was the more valuable acquisition. Affection for Canada, or for the French and Indian population there, was not a factor in the choice eventually made.

British defence of Canada has always been regulated by similar motives. Probably the United Kingdom would have fought any European nation who attempted to deprive her of the possession of so valuable a territory; but she has always been willing to give up fragments of her property rather than incur the enmity of the United States. In the revolutionary war, Canada, to the best of her ability, helped the United Kingdom against the rebelling colonies, and the thanks which Canada got was the transfer to her enemy of part of her territory, namely, that immense area now embraced within the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and half of Minnesota; together with the whole of Lake Michigan and one-half of all the other lakes (a); and the right to take fish in all Canadian coastal waters, including the use of much of the shore for drying and curing the fish.

It is not right to charge the loss of the State of Maine entirely to Lord Ashburton. Shelbourne and Oswald are the men chiefly to blame, and if Oswald (and probably Shelbourne) had had their way, the whole of Canada would have been part of the United States in 1783. Oswald signed a draft treaty putting the boundary line at Lake Nipissing!

"Where should we have been but for her guardianship?" Well, we should have had all the territory which Shelbourne and Oswald gave away in 1783; and we should have been strong enough to withstand all subsequent aggressions. Or if we were not, we could ourselves have conceded a few million acres from time to time, and yet have been able to boast something wider than our present limits.

I do not at present attempt a summary of concessions to the United States. I may say, however, that I do not join in the general condemnation of the British surrenders. Diplomacy is good or bad as it subserves your own purposes. The United Kingdom has never had any interest in Canada except in connection with its trade (and, more recently, military) benefits. Enjoyment of those has never

(a) With the possible exceptaion of Lke Ontario, to which New York may have had some prior claim.

depended, materially, upon whether the boundary was in one place or in another place not far away; upon whether United States fishermen came into our bays, or were kept outside of them; upon whether our just claims against the United States (say, in connection with the Fenian raids) were satisfied, or were abandoned; upon whether the St. Lawrence was a Canadian, or an open river; upon whether our sealing-vessels had a right to take seals in the open ocean, or might be regulated off it.

Such questions have always been of very insignificant importance to the United Kingdom compared with the maintenance of cordial relations with the United States; and it is, therefore, foolish to charge British diplomacy with either stupidity or dereliction of duty because it relinquished the immaterial in order to maintain the essential. Nations have constantly to make concessions for the sake of possible future support, and the United Kingdom has but pursued the customary course when she has conceded, from time to time, territory and advantages which were of no value to herself, in order that she might enjoy the benefit of good relations with the United States.

I make no objection to such action. It is perfectly natural. Canada would make easy concessions in Sierra Leone, for the sake of harmony in North America. But when I know, and everybody knows, that British diplomacy has pursued this natural and usual course, I do object to being told that the United Kingdom has defended us, and protected us, and surrounded us with kindly offices. That is not the fact. Some subsequent numbers of the Kingdom Papers will be devoted to proof of its untruth. Meanwhile, I content myself with an extract from a speech made by Sir Charles Tupper (whose testimony will not be suspected) in the House of Commons, on 22nd February, 1899:

"I now come to a very important question, and that is the reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do that with the United States that they would do with any other country in the world. I speak from intimate knowledge, and from my personal acquaintance and official association with both the great governing parties in England-because there were many changes of government while I held the position of High Commissioner, and I was necessarily thrown, in relation to these matters, into intimate association with bothwhen I say that from 1868, when I had occasion to deal with an important question relating to Canadian interests with Her Majesty's Government, down to the present hour, I have been struck very forcibly with the unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to allow any circumstances whatever even to threaten a collision with the United States."

Sir Charles was not mistaken. If any one doubts that harmonious relations with the United States has been a dominating factor in